JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. in Claim Case No. 297/2013 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimants filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties shall be referred to as per their description before the Tribunal.

3. As per claim petition, on 15.03.2013, at about 3:10 pm, deceased-Rajjan Tiwari, aged about 30 years, earning Rs. 3,200/- per month as electrician, by driving maruti car bearing Registration UP-78U-9579 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) was going from Raipur to Dondi-Lohara. However, when he reached near Balod Road, village Manhora, he lost control over his vehicle and dashed the offending vehicle against a tree, as a result of which deceased-Rajjan Tiwari sustained grievous injuries on his body and died during treatment. At the time of accident, the said offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant no. 1/respondent no. 1, father of deceased-Rajjan Tiwari and insured with non-applicant no. 2/respondent no. 2.

4. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties dismissed the claim petition of the claimants. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act where negligence is not required to be proved. He submits that the Tribunal has wrongly observed that the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner whereas the deceased was the third party and as such was entitled for compensation as per structured formula given in the 2nd Schedule of under Section 163A of the Act. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company submits that as per Insurance Policy Ex.D-1 available on record filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, it is evident that no premium of Rs. 50 or any amount was received by the Insurance Company towards compulsory PA coverage of owner-driver for its liability. He also submits that the driver of the offending vehicle is the father of the deceased so he is not covered under the third party and no any extra premium was paid by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to the Insurance Company. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the claim petition, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. From perusal of the record, it is seen that the deceased had borrowed the vehicle in question from its registered owner i.e. respondent No. 1 herein, who is the father of the deceased and was driving the same on 15.03.2013 when the unfortunate accident took place, in which, he died. From perusal of Insurance Policy i.e. Ex.D-1 available on record, which has not been disputed by the parties, it is evident that no premium was received by the Insurance Company towards PA coverage of owner-driver and no extra premium was paid by the owner to the Insurance Company.

9. The Tribunal further held that on the date of the accident the deceased was driving the offending vehicle and since the deceased was the son of the registered owner of the vehicle, his case would not fall under the category of Third Party, inasmuch, as the claimants have failed to adduce any evidence to show that the deceased was Paid Driver of the registered owner of the vehicle or the deceased was working under his control and, therefore, the status of the deceased could be treated as registered owner of the vehicle and the claimants are not